Logic does not pertain to truth, it pertains to prejudice. In a physical sense, logic is backed by the presence of science; an incomplete set of skewed observations of reality as seen through hand made devices.

Truth is an unstable concept, but there is also, an 'is' as seen through a consciousness of unprejudiced observation. One cannot trust anything one hears as truth but merely opinion, even if what is heard supports ones beliefs. There is actually nothing discerning logic and belief apart, only, only words.

For instance, I cant tell you the truth, only my observations which may serve you to question your beliefs. Any truth you come across should come from inside you, from a place free of prejudice. If you dont do this, your mind is at the whim of the currents it chances to get caught in.

You make a valid point. Its good that you're not entirely reacting out of a hostility of an unknown source. Am I right? Well I'll be happy to reply.

The concept of you having a head is only verified by a popular agreement of what that is which rests upon your shoulders. But there is still a missing link between that being truth and merely one way of looking at it, or how the subject is conceived. I tend to agree, you do have a head, its where your brain is, and your brain is where the words to which I am replying were pieced together. That is, what I know to the best of my knowledge on basic anatomy. But would I call that the truth? No, not at all. So I wont rigidly accept it to be so. This can apply to more consequential sectors of thought, such as, the way one views the universe, or the political situation on Earth. Some may say that this is simply a disagreement on semantics. But you'll find if you look, that 'truth' can never be rigid as words, its pure unobstructed observation, it can only translate to rigidity in the mind, thus nullifying it, thus, naturally, our solidifying of this concept, which is only based on stimulus and our perception of the stimulus. (exactly like when contemplating Infinity, one turns the concept into a Finite model, and only a potential Infinity can be conceived, not an actual Infinity) That we humans are all raised in a similar fashion we follow similar patterns and our perceptions of life are generally unified. This generalization, the things we can mostly agree upon (like your 'I have a head' analogy) is quite logical, and as you stated, is also the truth. Now notice that all to which you have applied the word 'truth', is a noun! linguistics!

In your desire to be right, or to prove me wrong, you missed the point, twice.

In your desire to look like a logician you committed logical fallacies twice.

Have you ever even read an introductory work on Logic?

Not only do you not present you arguments in formal symbolic proofs, but your precisely stated assertions are not even grammatically true. You committed the first Logical Mortal Sin with your first statement.

I hope you are able to sort out your illogical, anachronistic ort of mind.

In your desire to look like a logician you committed logical fallacies twice.

Have you ever even read an introductory work on Logic?

Not only do you not present you arguments in formal symbolic proofs, but your precisely stated assertions are not even grammatically true. You committed the first Logical Mortal Sin with your first statement.

I hope you are able to sort out your illogical, anachronistic ort of mind.

More than twice by your definition. Yet repeating the format of my retort must have been appealing enough to overlook this for some reason.

Logical Mortal Sin... An act I have willingly committed under glaring eyes by apoplectic priests of the church of logic. What are you doing with that monograph? You should know better than to be using a book as a feeble shield.

It would be contradictory for me to get my ideas on logic from someone else's book, something you might pick up if you read what Ive been saying.

It must have been the tone of my views that were mistaken for the rigidity of a precisely stated assertion, yet I have already said that which would be boldly contradictory to this notion.

Quote:

For instance, I cant tell you the truth, only my observations which may serve you to question your beliefs.

A contradiction I didn't make, but an emotional reaction you did, however subtle.

You really do need to find a forum where you can converse with others in the language of JIBBERISH, DOUBLE-SPEAK, DOUBLE-BIND MESSAGES and REVERSE PSYCHOLOGY.

There will be no further waste of my time discussing with you anything about my head.

I have a head.

There is evidence of its' existence.

Therefore, it is a TRUTH.

Which is the evidence? Your head? Or the word head? If you said physical evidence you'd be making a clearer point, but still it wouldn't matter...
Of course, you'll assume your head. But what if I dont believe in heads, or I dont speak English and do not know the word head? I know what you must be thinking, its just words, right? Exactly. Cant you see the limitations of this process I'm trying to demonstrate? Think about it. Think harder. Its passing right under your noses.

Quite frankly your idea, isn't an idea at all. What you say boils down to language and the wording we use as being true or false.

For example. We all know the sun exists. Even if we don't know it's a star, or have no knowledge of the universe, we all KNOW that when the sun is up it brings light.

This IS a fact. What is also a fact, is that your entire argument is as silly as saying "What if I don't believe in suns." Well then sir, you don't believe in suns, it doesn't make it not true, it just means you defy the truth. If you don't believe in suns because you don't understand the word sun, it doesn't change the physical presence of the object in which one was referring to. It just changes what ever word we apply to it.

Like Blue Angel, has a head. What if you don't believe in heads? This is a fallacy, because you do... because your thoughts are coming from your own head. This is something you KNOW is true, even if you choose to call it something different, or leave it nameless all together.

What you are arguing is language. Such as, what makes the word "Bag" apply to a bag. You would have to look up the origin of the word to understand where it came from... but all in all, if we didn't accept language as a truth, we would all still be cavemen now. You need Identifiers (words) in order to keep track of objects.

Period, the end.

Your Idea is wrong, and illogical. Trying to refute logic... you only prove even harder it's concept. Furthermore, I could reflect the same example back to you. You are indeed trying to claim a truth by saying logic is bias. On the other hand, there supposedly is no truth. If there were no truth, your entire argument would never have been conceived. You had to base your counter argument upon the word truth and logic. If there was no truth, logic wouldn't exist, if logic didn't exist, neither would your post. Which makes your post out right wrong.

Quit trolling, if you aren't trolling... get mental help fast.

Or, just hang yourself... and see if death is a truth, I'm pretty damn sure it is... but I'd love to watch you give it a go.

Also, it's easy to predict a reaction such as this. You concoct something foolish on purpose, and propose it to non-foolish people. It's quite obvious the reaction that your going to get.

Everyone with half a brain will say your wrong. Anybody who agrees with you is a moron. It's literally that simple.

Logic will tell you that this is a binary question. There is no third option, only 1 or 0.

To prove my point I'll quote you again.

Quote:

An act I have willingly committed under glaring eyes by apoplectic priests of the church of logic. What are you doing with that monograph? You should know better than to be using a book as a feeble shield.